I’m from a farm family and so I learned up close how people can rationalize that which is in their personal interest—included a large, controlling and redistributive intrusion of government in any area that benefits them individually.
Such it is not only with overt government subsidies, but price supports and other regulations that help those in the business.
Thus, in farm-intensive regions of the country, we can end up with “Republicans” like Chuck Hagel.
And, of course, socialism isn’t only defined as abject communism, but as this opening paragraph to the Wikipedia discussion describes, all sorts of government control of the means of production:
“Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]”
Farmers on average declare a relatively low income, and so end up being significant lifetime ‘takers’ in social security and Medicare ‘handouts’, as well as regular farm subsidies and regulatory benefits.
I don’t doubt but that farmers justify their handouts to themselves by considering that they put in in taxes more than they take out in benefits, but that’s just not the case—especially in an environment in which we are borrowing something like 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We’re broke as it is, without special payouts to favored industries. And due to imperfect distribution of US Senate representation by population, farmers are in that position, which they take advantage of, becoming in essence ‘crony capitalists’.
If you had read that Wikipedia definition, you'd have noticed that government "ownership" is included in every sense of the word "socialism".
As for "crony capitalists", that requires a certain level of outright corruption -- government individuals favoring their own friends and family over others.
And I don't think that's what we're looking at here.
9YearLurker: "Thus, in farm-intensive regions of the country, we can end up with “Republicans” like Chuck Hagel."
Why do you bite the hand which feeds conservatism?
Virtually every seriously conservative legislator is elected from the more rural areas of their states.
Farmers don't vote for liberal Democrats.
9YearLurker: "Farmers on average declare a relatively low income, and so end up being significant lifetime ‘takers’ in social security and Medicare ‘handouts’, as well as regular farm subsidies and regulatory benefits."
If you are going to count Social Security and Medicare as "welfare", then virtually everyone is a "taker", and as, was it Newsweek?, said: "we're all Socialists now".
But I don't buy that.
Most people, and all Republicans, understand that major adjustments have to be made to bring these programs into financial solvency, but the numbers of people -- farmers or non-farmers -- who opt out of such programs is small enough you have to look hard to find them.
In short, if you define "conservatism" in narrow-enough terms, you'll soon find there are no "real conservatives".
That doesn't seem to me a very politically viable option, FRiend.